[quote]treco wrote:
I am disappointed that our selection is narrowed down to:
A Blowhard autocrat businessman that has never held any political office
B Nearly comatose but common sense surgeon that has never held political office
C 2 young career politicians that have never progressed up a corporate ladder
D An old, career, & Socialist politician
E the polled least trustworthy candidate whom I also personally find despicable
F Zero military experience for any, yet expected to be competent CIC
My leader pipe dream ,er, wishlist once again:
A military experience to understand the culture & how to function in an
autocratic system of directing and follow commands
B some corporate experience showing ownership experience of P/L and
directing people
C Congressional or gubernatorial experience to learn how to work within the
governing process laid out by the Constitution. [/quote]
Modern history has shown us that some of our best Presidents were former Governors. But, we just don’t have the power in that area this time around. Bush is unable to get the GOP nomination as can be seen by his poll numbers. Kasich is far too liberal to capture the nomination. Ghristie and Huckabee just didn’t light up the voters interest. Pataki never had a chance. I still can’t figure out why he even entered the race. Gilmore is a former Governor who also never had a chance.
By the way I think they were all good leaders as their records show. As I have said best GOP field in a long time. But we live in weird times. The most liberal man to ever hold the Presidency has one more year to go and he has pulled his party to the left. The back lash on such a thing is happening with the GOP.
People are excited about Trump because of his tough talk and apparent will to get the job done. This is the opposite of Obama and we tend to elect opposites at the Presidential level. We went from Ike to Kennedy, from Carter to Reagan, there are others as well.
While Rubio and Cruz may not have the executive experience they are both strong Candidates relative to their knowledge and substance. Can’t say that about Trump or Carson.
I would feel very comfortable with either of them in the White House. But, I do think that Rubio has the best chance of beating Hillary because of his charisma. Cruz seems lackluster in that areas, and in fact looks a little goofy at times with a high pitched voice. Yeah I know it seems shallow but that’s how the typical voter actually makes up their minds. Do you think they examined Obama? Ha ha…if they did he would never have won. He has a great smile, great speaking voice and loaded with charisma.
Granted I don’t think we need someone with movie star good looks to beat the likes of Hillary Clinton. She’s 68 and looks every year even after having extensive work done on her face. As for charisma she has none. She comes off as quite insincere. I also think she lacks the energy to campaign as hard as either Cruz or Rubio. She will be unable to maintain a rigorous campaign schedule. If you recall she had that fainting problem a few years back.
Anyway, once again I would feel comfortable with Cruz or Rubio in the White House. Keep in mind it is not Obama’s lack of experience that makes him the worst modern day President. Realistically after 7 years a smart guy would be able to figure out how to make the right moves. It is Obama’s left wing positions on every issue that makes him a very bad President.
As I have said before even if Hillary did win (which she will not) she would be a breath of fresh air after 8 years of Obama.
